Over the last few of days I have been watching, reading, and listening to many reports from both liberal and conservative sources about President Trump removing Director Brennan’s security clearance. Actually, I started reading and hearing about this a couple of months ago when the possibility was first leaked out. What is interesting to me in these reports is that both sides are writing from ignorance and they do not seem to be trying to figure out what is truth. For conservatives they are not trying to understand why Brennan would still have a security clearance and what that means. For liberals they are not looking to see if Brennan’s actions jeopardized or compromised national security and led to his loss of the security clearance.
First, let’s look at how a security clearance is granted, what it means, and what it doesn’t mean. It is important to remember that a security clearance is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the government. To obtain a security clearance an organization sponsors an individual and applies to the government for that individual to be granted a security clearance. To be given a security clearance requires a background check. These background checks vary in depth and frequency depending on the level of clearance being requested. Once the clearance has been granted the individual does not have access to classified information, however. The organization that requested the clearance be granted can now give access to classified information, but not just any information up to that classification level.
The next part of a security clearance is called “need to know.” A person with a clearance can only be granted access to information that they have a “need to know”, not all information up to that classification level. For example, if I have a confidential clearance in the military and am assigned to a ship that does not grant me access to confidential material handled by the State Department that relates to diplomatic discussions. Those discussions do not relate to my job so I do not have a “need to know.” Because I do not have a need to know I do not have access to those classified documents. This rule stands regardless of the level of classification that has been granted. So if I have been granted a Top Secret clearance by the military I do not necessarily have access to confidential material from the State Department because I do not have a “need to know.”
Next, how does one lose access to classified information? First, if your security clearance lapses, in other words your back ground investigation expires, you lose access to classified information. Next, you can leave the job that required you to have access to classified information. In this case you retain your clearance, but you know longer have the “need to know” so you can no longer access classified information. When you leave a job that required you to have a security clearance you have to sign a form, similar to a non-disclosure agreement, which states that you will not have access to classified material and you cannot communicate classified material and if you do you are violating law. Last, if you do something that brings your ability to handle classified information into question you security clearance can be pulled. There are a number of things that can bring your ability to handle classified information into question, leaking information, losing information, questionable personal contacts and business dealings, and bankruptcies name just a few. This can be done by administrative action or by direction of those responsible for the classified information that is at risk.
Why would the government allow someone to retain their security clearance when they leave the job that required one? Two reasons, actually, and they both deal with economics. First, it costs about $10,000 for a security clearance. The government only wants to pay this once and private companies would prefer not pay at all. Next is a personnel cost. Even with people maintaining their clearance when they leave a job that required one, there is a backlog of over 500,000 investigations that need to get done. This means that it takes between 6 – 18 months for an investigation to be finished and adjudicated.
So, now that we have a background we can address both questions. Conservatives are incorrect when they make it sound as if Brennan, or anyone else, has unfettered access to classified information. He actually never had unfettered access. When he left his position at the CIA he lost his access to classified information. Now, based on his previous position he may have been called about certain problems and given access to the information necessary to be of assistance. This is different than the idea of having access to any and all information. And when his background investigation expires he will lose all access.
Liberals are also incorrect when they do not consider if Brennan’s actions could jeopardize classified information. There is credible evidence that Brennan leaked classified information and he has been caught lying to Congress more than once. In one case the CIA, with Brennan’s approval, was found to have spied on Congress by breaking into a secure computer network. When this was discovered at first he lied about it. These are all things that legitimately bring into question Brennan’s ability to handle classified information correctly.
One last thing. I find it funny that liberals claim that taking away Brennan's security clearance violates his First Amendment guaranteed right to free speech. This is actually an argument in favor of removing Brennan's security clearance. If he is talking about classified material he is not protecting it and should lose his clearance. Without his clearance he can still oppose President Trump, with the same unclassified information available to all of us.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by 5.56NATO
Bookmarks